ORDER P. Ray, J. - The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Case suffered a money decree for 12,100/- in Money Suit No. 1/86 of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Patnagarh. He preferred Money Appeal No. 3/91 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Boiangir against the said money decree. He did not deposit the decretal amount in the said appeal. It appears that the decree-holder-opposite party filed an application before the lower appellate Court for a direction upon the judgment-debtor-appellant to deposit the decretal dues in Court. On the said application an order was passed on July 16, 1993 directing the appellant to deposit the decretal amount by July 30,1993. The judgment-debtor-appellant took time on several occasions to deposit the decretal amount. On October 13, 1993 he filed an application praying for furnishing security instead of depositing the decretal amount in cash. By order No. 33 dated December 4, 1993 the learned District Judge rejected the said application and also dismissed the appeal for default. Against the aforesaid order dated December 4, 1993 the judgment-debtor has moved this revisional application. 2. Mr. A. K. Misra, appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal inasmuch as Order 41, Rule 1, Sub-rule (3) of the CPC does not contemplate dismissal of appeal as a consequence of failure to deposit the decretal amount or to furnish sufficient security. In support of his submission Mr. Misra relies upon the judgments reported in Prabhakar Deshmukh Vs. Vinayakrao Kaushal. AIR 1983 A.P. 277 (State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. Mohamud Hasan Khan Moharaj Kumar of Mahammodabad) and Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla Vs. Sushila Devi and Others, . 3. Mr. Beuria appearing for the opposite party has drawn the attention of the Court to the order-sheet and submits that the judgment-debtor having taken time to comply with the direction to deposit the decretal amount cannot be. permitted to take the stand that the deposit was not mandatory and to avoid the consequence of such non-deposit. 4. 3. Mr. Beuria appearing for the opposite party has drawn the attention of the Court to the order-sheet and submits that the judgment-debtor having taken time to comply with the direction to deposit the decretal amount cannot be. permitted to take the stand that the deposit was not mandatory and to avoid the consequence of such non-deposit. 4. Although Order 41, Rule 1, Sub-rule (3), CPC has laid down that the "appellant shall, within such time as the appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit" it has not provided for consequences of non-compliance with the said provision. The consequence has been indicated In Order 41, Rule 5, Sub-rule (5). It has been laid down therein "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules, where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree." It is obvious from the language of Order 41, Rule 5, Sub-rule (5) that the only consequence contemplated is that in case of failure to make the deposit or to furnish the security as provided in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall not grant stay of the execution of the money dacree. 5. In Prabhakar Deshmukh Vs. Vinayakrao Kaushal, the legislative history behind the enactment of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 has been given. It appeals that the legislature consciously has not provided for dismissal of the appeal and has enacted Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 for the purpose. The other two decisions referred to by Mr. Misra have also taken the same view as expressed in the Bombay decision. 6. Mr. Beuria has further submitted that the judgment-debtor having taken time to comply with the Court's, order to deposit the decretal amount the appeal was rightly dismissed for disobedience of the Court's order. The said submission cannot be accepted. For the purpose of enforcement of its order Court cannot invent a penal consequence not provided for in the Statute. Moreover, Order 41 of the CPC has expressly prescribed the consequence in Rule 5 (5) and the Court's power has been accordingly circumscribed. Court's power cannot extent beyond the lim t set out by the provisions of the Act. For the purpose of enforcement of its order Court cannot invent a penal consequence not provided for in the Statute. Moreover, Order 41 of the CPC has expressly prescribed the consequence in Rule 5 (5) and the Court's power has been accordingly circumscribed. Court's power cannot extent beyond the lim t set out by the provisions of the Act. In case it is found that the judgment-debtor's conduct amounts to an undertaking before the Court for depositing the decretal amount he becomes liable to be appropriately dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for any wilful disregard of his undertaking before the Court. Non-compliance with the direction of the Court under Order 41, Rule 1 (3) by itself does not invite any consequence other than that mentioned in Rule 5 (5) of Order 41. 7. The legislative history and the express language of the relevant provisions of the CPC make it quite clear that the Court of appeal below had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41. CPC. Accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. It appears that this Court during the pendency of this Civil Revision case granted ad interim stay of further proceeding of the execution case on the condition of petitioner's depositing the cost of suit and furnishing the security for the decretal amount- In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has deposited the cost of the suit in cash and executed a registered bond in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It also appears that the judgment-debtor did not file any application for stay of the execution case in the Court below. The interim order which was passed by this Court during the pendency of the Civil Revision ease expires with the disposal of this Civil Revision Case. However, the judgment-debtor-appellant will be at liberty to apply before the Court below for stay of the further proceedings of the execution case and if such application is made, the Court below will examine whether the security bond furnished by the judgment-debtor-appellant can be accepted as security for the purpose of granting stay. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this revisional application is allowed, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this revisional application is allowed, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. As the money appeal is of the year 1991, the Court below is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within four months from the date of receipt of the records. 10. No order as to costs. Let the records be sent down immediately. Final Result : Allowed